Is passing array arguments to nodefunctions acceptable?

Greetings, ladies and gentlemen!
I am trying to figure out the right way of passing a variable number of parameters to a nodefunction.
I have put together the following piece of code for testing, and it appears to work, but is this the proper way and is it handled correctly internally?

//TestArrayArgs(int argc, intarray argv)
int argc = parval(1);
int argvPtr = parval(2);
intarray argv = argvPtr;
for (int ii = 1; ii <= argc; ii++)
{
 pt("Arg #"); pd(ii); pt(": "); pd(argv[ii]);pr();
}

intarray ia = makearray(5);
for (int i = 1; i <= 5; i++)
 ia[i] = i *57;
int  blah = TestArrayArgs(5, ia);

* Is there a similar way to allocate and populate an array in the nodefunction, cast it to integer and return from the function?
* Is there a way to tell the number of elements in the array from the pointer?


Thank you!
Vadim

In prior versions of FlexSim, you couldn't pass arrays in Flexscript. You had to store information in nodes in the tree and pass a reference to the parent node in order to get more information passed between functions.

In version 6.0.2, it appears as though returning arrays in a Flexscript user command somewhat works. I tested creating an intarray of size 500 and return it from a user command. When I try to access the array from within the script window, indexes 0 and 1 return bad values, but 2-500 work properly.

I suspect this development was started but not finalized, which is why it never appeared in release notes. I will discuss this with the rest of the development team to figure out what the plan is with array return values and parameters in Flexscript.

I suggest continuing to store information in nodes in the tree and pass a reference to the parent node in order to get more information passed between functions.

After discussing this with the rest of the development team, I have found that this functionality was not implemented intentionally. It is simply a by-product of how we store and pass parameters and return values. Although reading and writing to this memory using this syntax appears to mostly work, the memory that it is pointing to might have been deallocated by flexsim, which may cause unexpected results when you read/write to it (particularly if another process happens to allocate that memory by chance).

I strongly suggest not returning arrays in Flexscript and not passing arrays as parameters in Flexscript. A safer way to pass more information is to store it in the tree and reference it with treenode pointers.